by minimus 22 Replies latest jw friends
I believe they are very powerful as a group. If they dig in and go after someone or something, they are relentless.
Conversely, if they choose to ignore something or somebody, the public may never be aware of a matter.
I support freedom of the press and I think they should be applauded for their convictions. On the other hand, perhaps more should be expected of them.
They are paid to indoctrinate and manipulate the public, not inform them on important matters. Most news outlet corporation leaders are members of the CFR and Bilderberg group that are hell bent on destroying the country.
LRG
The press for the most part untrustworthy, they are politically motivated on what they choose to or not to cover and how they cover it. But they are not honest about it. I think there was more integrity years ago when News Papers ruled the roost and the big 3 Network News outlets were king of the hill.
But I prefer to get my news from different sources now so Im not tied into one source and formulate my own opinions,,,,,
mainstream news is all what most people know
Right, which is why we are a country of Low Information Voters unfortunately.
The news media is an instrument used by Satan to spread distorted information or even outright lies about the methods and motives of Jehovah’s people. (w02 9/15)
Some opposers have spread slanderous lies in the media, even falsely accusing Jehovah’s Witnesses of being a dangerous cult. (w01 10/15)
Why do you ask?
Most news media are owned by big corporation who are running the world. That is why most of the news is about dancing with stars or how to pick your nose. It is so dumb down I sometimes wonder if the newscaster can read. Totally ADD
Good way to be informed on current events.
I remember in the early 1970s of a letter that was circulating saying that the "news media" pictured something in the Bible and that Satan used it to mislead people.
My mother had the original letter that was being passed along and the Presiding Overseer instructed her to "burn it". Ahhh, the good old days!
This made me think how differently I view the news because I am in my 60's compared to younger people today. I watch the local news and newspapers (more and more online) to get my news. I don't twitter, have failed at Facebook. More and more the news people look like they are only in their 20's, don't know about the past news and don't see the connection to the present. A local newsperson was listening to their colleague discuss the Boston bombing and then after 60 seconds "let's get to something light" and started talking about the local dog for adoption from the humane society. What! I sent an e-mail asking what gives....no response yet. I'm calling this time...have you ever seen how hard it is to find a phone number for an observation of how the mail is done. Easier to ignore an e-mail or a comment.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/10/5411754/in-our-news-mediatwitter-culture.html
Yesterday I wrote about the subject of "nothing is going on" in the news, which got me to thinking about how it is now when something is going on. Something huge.
We've had a few major stories in the past few weeks, the Boston Marathon bombing being the most prominent. And, certainly, we have all been adequately informed by the news media about it. The Boston bombing is one of those stories that television does particularly well, if not exactly accurately, mostly because everything is on the fly. Mistakes are made (misidentification of a bombing suspect, for example), but mostly they keep the pictures rolling and the commentary droning.
What I felt has been missing in the past few years (let's say ten) has been recognizable news anchors. I was chatting with a colleague today about this. She's in her fifties and has the same frame of cultural media reference that I do. We both grew up on people like Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Tom Brokaw, John Chancellor, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Frank Reynolds, and Ted Koppel. Something big happened, and you would turn on your tv and not just learn something, you would get your hand held ("Col.Glenn reports everything is A-OK"). We laughed about our mutual memories, and yet there was a ruefulness about it, like something important was gone.
Now the news flies at you at Twitter speed, like a dead salmon thrown into your face, and you have virtually no time to put it context, or, indeed, anyone you know or feel you know to help cushion the blow. This afternoon, as I was drawing, I was listening to some old CBS broadcasts of space launches. I know what you're thinking--why? Do you listen to music? Yeah, sometimes, but there is something comforting about listening to these familiar voices from 40 years ago, discussing some major event that requires a little more humanity than I think is now projected by television news.
For example, during the coverage of the Apollo 11 launch, Walter Cronkite would say things like, "Oh, boy!" and express a real human emotion. Oh, boy. Look at that big honker going up. That's exactly what I felt. Oh, boy. He'd discuss how many stereos the sound of the launch would be comparable to (eight million), or how Neil Armstrong sounded confident. Now, you have 29 year olds discussing Twitter feed over continuous tape loops while stock quotes flow at the bottom of the screen. Oh boy.
Walter didn't do Twitter feeds.
During the Boston event, CBS News was a pretty sparing presence, I thought. They broke in from time to time, but it wasn't a continual seance like some of the events from the 1960s, where news events would command all-day coverage. It seems incredible now, but they used to run gavel to gavel coverage of political conventions, and people would actually watch them. Now they show a prescribed three-hour chunk of completely scripted event, where the outcome is precisely known, and political drama is reduced to an elderly actor addressing an empty chair. The reason this is happening is that as we wean the American people from news, the less they feel they need to pay attention, and not just to television news, but newspapers as well.
Having a familiar face or two to sort things out, like a beloved uncle teaching you how to fish or a trusted teacher walking you through a complicated math problem, was enormously useful in a time of national crisis. Pointing out the First Lady's dignity, or the astronaut's training, delivered in reassuring tones, was something you could really grab on to in a sea of frightening information.
Now that our media environment is atomized, goodbye to all that. I am not sure how to get it back. I guess we won't.
That's why I sometimes listen to and watch things like 40 year-old moon launches. It helps me to remember why I got into the news business in the first place. I actually had the opportunity, as a very young man in my early twenties, to be peripherally involved in the ABC News Nightline program. I got to know Ted Koppel in passing, and I can tell you that he was just as composed and cool in person as he was on camera. I also met or saw Sander Vanocur, Sam Donaldson, Jules Bergman (Quick: who is the ABC News Science Editor now?), and a few other quite well-known ABC correspondents. They were all educated, cultured, and erudite. It made me feel that sensible people were trying to do the right thing in informing the American people. I'm not saying the people on the air are not the same type of people. I've met some of them, too, and they are indeed impressive at the network level.
It's just that they're not on the air much, and that television news seems to be shrinking, too. That's bad. It makes for a less-informed electorate, but, more importantly, it conveys the message that if paying attention to the news isn't important to television networks, why should you?
That's the way it, I guess.
Oh, boy.
• Read more articles by Jack Ohman
Yesterday, we had a young student from Sacramento City College in to visit our editorial board. She asked a number of interesting questions, which we all answered as best we could. One of the responses involved the concept of having to produce content (read:fill large white space with words, fast) when "nothing is going on."
Now, the phrase "nothing going on" in the news business is one that may seem incredible to the casual observer. The most common statement I get from readers is along the lines of, "You must be having a field day with all that's going on." Sure. I'm having a field day -cartoonists always have "field days"-- when something everyone is talking about is going on. For example, with two words that Gov. Jerry Brown uttered in reference to the Bay Bridge ("sh** happens") permitted me to get a day ahead, which, in concept, I like, but almost never am. But in having to produce six or so cartoons per week, and write this blog every day, it also leaves me sometimes noting that "nothing is going on."
Hence the theme of this column. Am I at 600 words yet? Here are some more words: ratiocinate, imbued, verdant, truculent...how many is that? Am I closer to 600?
Anyway, what do I do when "nothing is going on?"
Well, I just pretend that you care about some subject in the news. For example, there is a major problem with honey bee reproduction right now, but you would never know it on the television networks. Apparently these Kardashian girls are a bigger story. Of course, if these Kardashian girls stop producing news, it won't lead to a world agricultural collapse. If we had one of those, and every human died, it could really cut into the ratings. So I did a cartoon encouraging bees to reproduce.
I would think that if honey bees read any newspaper, it would be The Sacramento Bee.
When "nothing is going on" in the news, that means it's usually August. That means the news media has to manufacture news, so we do things like "Shark Week," or find a philandering politician, or commemorate an anniversary of an actual news event.
There are a lot of those. In fact, this year will mark the fiftieth anniversary of the JFK assassination, the 20th anniversary of the inauguration of Bill Clinton, and the 10th anniversary of the War in Iraq. With reference to the Kennedy assassination, I can assure you that in November we will all be watching breathless documentaries about "what really happened" in Dallas (Oswald did it, sorry, I know that's boring and you won't watch that), and "new questions" will be raised, and that "new scientific tests will be conducted" on some piece of evidence, which will lead to even more questions, leading to even more documentaries.
Because nothing is going on.
When 9/11 occurred, one of the things I was profoundly wrong about was that the news media might regain some of its former seriousness and go back to, you know, reporting news. That lasted about two weeks or so. Then, convinced "nothing is going on," again, all of a sudden we know way more about the Kardashians.
In any event, it may seem like nothing is going on sometimes, but lots of things are going on, and it's not the Kardashians.
We should ask the bees.
While we can.
